While Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s inaugural budget included additional money for infrastructure in the form of a new Public Transit Fund, it also came with a vague commitment to bolster Canada’s trade remedy system — a commitment that runs the risk of raising the cost of projects across the country.

In addition to the Conservatives’ Building Canada Fund, Economic Action Plan 2015 allocates $750 million for two years starting in 2017-18 — and $1 billion annually after that — to reduce urban congestion and gridlock.

The Public Transit Fund, the budget explains, could be used for projects like Edmonton’s new 13.2-kilometre light rail transit line, to which the federal government is contributing $400 million.

But the budget also promises to ensure Canada’s trade remedy system doesn’t allow imported goods — like the ones you might use to build a light rail transit line — to be unfairly priced or subsidized when coming into the Canadian market.

“To support Canadian jobs and investment, trade must not only be free, it must also be fair,” the budget says.

“To maintain a level playing field for Canadian producers, the Government will ensure that the trade remedy system operates in an effective, accessible, and transparent manner, in consultation with stakeholders such as the Canadian Steel Producers Association (CSPA).”

Fairness, in this case, means protection from lower-cost imports from countries such as China and Turkey, judged to illegally undercutting or threatening to undercut Canadian producers and displace Canadian workers.

The other side the of the equation, though, is that infrastructure projects inevitably cost more when competition — unfair or not — is eliminated.

That helps explain why there are different perspectives on trade remedy duties.

The CSPA, of course, was pleased with the budget commitment.

“We commend the Minister for proceeding with the promised improvements to Canada’s trade remedy system, to counter the injury to Canadian manufacturers from dumped and subsidized steel imports from abroad,” CPSA President Ron Watkins was quoted in the organization’s press release on Tuesday.

“These changes are absolutely timely, as we face growing levels of unfairly-traded imports, massive and growing overcapacity in the global steel industry, and increased efforts to evade duties on dumped and subsidized imports.”

One change CSPA called for in their 2015 budget submission was new “financial penalties or other sanctions for parties that deliberately work to avoid the legal disciplines of Canada’s trade laws, including willful falsification of import data.”.

So that might be one way the Harper government goes about making the system more “effective.”

But some are arguing it’s a little too effective already.

Indeed, a quick look at measures in place show healthy duties on a wide array of steel products.

And the duties on one product in particular, concrete reinforcing bar (rebar), have caught the B.C. government’s attention.

The B.C. government, with the support of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association (ICBA), has asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for a rare public interest inquiry to either reduce or eliminate duties as high as 41 per cent imposed on rebar from Turkey, China, and South Korea last January.

According to estimates from the ICBA, since rebar represents six to 10 per cent of construction costs, the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel outside of Vancouver (expected to begin in 2017) could end up being $20 million to $32 million more expensive.

Screen grab from a digital fly over of the proposed George Massey Bridge. Source: Government of British Columbia

“The Government of British Columbia and the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association (ICBA) are united in our commitment to stand up for B.C., particularly where taxpayer dollars are involved,” B.C. Trade minister Teresa Wat said in an emailed statement.

“We have assessed the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s decision to apply rebar duties, and together with the ICBA, we have moved forward with a request for a Public Interest Inquiry, the next step in the process. We expect to receive the tribunal’s decision on this request soon and will decide on next steps once that happens.”

That decision, which the steel producers oppose, is expected by April 27.

If they choose to hold it, the CITT could then eventually recommend Joe Oliver, in the public interest, cut the duties or get rid of them altogether.

That would force him to weigh the benefits of protecting the Canadian steel industry in one particular case against making infrastructure cheaper to build.